- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:32:10 -0600
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>, public-xslt-40@w3.org
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes:
> - When I learned the word 'actionable', it was apparently used only in
> legal contexts
>
> Sorry about that. Merriam-Webster has
>
> 1
> : subject to or affording ground for an action or suit at law
> 2
> : capable of being acted on
>
> and I was using meaning (2).
I notice that lots of people do. So I should learn to live with it.
> - I assume that one reason to close an issue with no action is not that
> it's undecidable, unresolvable, or non-actionable, but just that it
> proposes something that we decide we do not wish to do. So I guess
> that "propose to close with no action" can be *either*
>
> - a way of marking an issue as too broad (perhaps because it has
> grown too many legs in its discussion) and not resolvable with a
> single decision, *or*
>
> - a way of deciding an issue ('we will do nothing').
>
> Yes. But there's a whole range of reasons for closing with no action
> including "this is a really bad idea", "this is a good idea but we've
> decided not to do it", "this is not actually an issue at all", "this
> is a problem but no-one has proposed a workable solution and we can
> live with it", "no one seems to be prepared to do the work to take
> this further".
Yes, agreed. If it's common ground that closing with no action could be
done for a variety of reasons, then I'm happy.
Michael
--
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 22:35:12 UTC